Off-Season Priority #1: Find A Running Game

Actually, it did. Our passing game was abysmal, which is why we lost. All of the Redskins' rushing success got them a whopping three-point lead with three minutes remaining. We had the ball with a chance to win, and it all came down to whether our passing game could beat their pass defense. It didn't.

In the NFL, rushing games almost never decide which team wins.

There were 47 teams that rushed for at least 6.0 yards per carry in a game this season. They went 21-26 (.447) in those games.

There were 124 teams that rushed for at least 5.0 yards per carry. They went 67-56-1 (.544) in those games.

There were 267 teams that rushed for at least 4.0 yards per carry. They went 135-131-1 (.507) in those games.

There were 82 teams that rushed for less than 3.0 yards per carry. They went 39-43 (.0476) in those games.

Obviously, no matter how well or how poorly you run the ball, your chances of winning does vary much from a 50-50 coin flip.

When you tie in offense and defensive performance against the run, it's even closer to a 50-50 chance. The teams that averaged more YPC in games this season went 130-125-1 (0.510). Running the ball better than your opponent was virtually meaningless in terms of deciding which team won the game.

On the other hand, teams that passed more effectively went 203-52-1 (.795), and it hardly mattered whether they also ran the ball more effectively (.800) or ran the ball less effectively (.783) than their opponent.

How are the 49ers winning games from a statistical viewpoint?

I think Garrett wants an offense like the 49ers run but he has pieces more like the Saints.

I think Garrett wants an offense like the 49ers run but he has pieces more like the Saints.

True but then even the Saints felt the need to do something to help their running game which is why they used a 1st rd pick on Ingram. Makes no sense for teams to draft RB high in the draft if they felt the position did not matter in terms of winning.

This is what's wrong with the whole premise of "team that passes better will win
and run game doesn't matter" premise using Adam's formula.

As you can see, using his formula Team 1 QB passed "better" (ANYPA: 10 vs 8.3). And Team 1 did win 21-14.
So you can claim that Team 1 won becaused they passed better.
But only reason they actually won was because their run game was so much better and scroed 3 TDs.

But is that really correct? If the Team 1 run game didn't score any TDs, they would have lost.

The reason TD by the QB is important is because teams like us can't score TDs by rushing . If Romo can't throw TDs,
we'll be kicking FGs.

Last Sunday's game is a perfect example where this formula doesn' tell the full story.
If Redskins didn't have all those rushing TDs, they would have lost even though RG3 passed "much" better
than Romo according to Adam.

So what type of passing game would you want, knowing how bad our rushing attack is?

Even though the "Bus driver" is a much better passer (according to Adam's formula), I'll take Romo type of performance every time.

I have few problems with this formula. One, it doesn't use TDs. Two, it treat every int the same way.
An int that is thrown at the end of the half because of a no risk hail mary pass to the end zone would be penalized the
same way as a pick six int at the end of the game.

I have few problems with this formula. One, it doesn't use TDs. Two, it treat every int the same way.
An int that is thrown at the end of the half because of a no risk hail mary pass to the end zone would be penalized the
same way as a pick six int at the end of the game.

Lets just use STATS to prove how absolutely absurd your claim is that the #1 priority should be improving the passing game over the run game.

In 2012 the Cowboys were #3 ranked in all the NFL in passing.

In 2012 the Cowboys ranked #31 out of 32 teams in the NFL in the run game.

And your genius, priority #1 advice is improve the passing game and not worry about the run game?

Wow......thats all there is to say is wow. Has there ever been more of a ridiculous statement made or more backwards analysis on any forum EVER?

You are using total yards for rankings, which is a terrible way to judge how effective a team is at running or passing.

For the umpteenth time, there is no proof that running the ball better helps a team pass the ball better or win more to any degree whatsoever. This has been proved year after year in the NFL. But closed-minded people who cling to their disproved theories can't accept that fact.

You are using total yards for rankings, which is a terrible way to judge how effective a team is at running or passing.

For the umpteenth time, there is no proof that running the ball better helps a team pass the ball better or win more to any degree whatsoever. This has been proved year after year in the NFL. But closed-minded people who cling to their disproved theories can't accept that fact.

In terms of stats maybe not as for what takes place on the field yes there is. Safety being forced to move up, LB biting up on the run. The physical toll it takes on a defense as they are getting hammered. It matters and if it didn't teams would not run the ball the game would be 100% passing and nothing else but it does not work that way.

HC after HC talks about the importance of the running game to them so this non sense of well running does not win games? It does if it helps the offense move the ball and the chains

You want to use a stat watch the game see what a big time running game will force a defense to do to combat it and the passing lanes it creates.

In terms of stats maybe not as for what takes place on the field yes there is. Safety being forced to move up, LB biting up on the run. The physical toll it takes on a defense as they are getting hammered. It matters and if it didn't teams would not run the ball the game would be 100% passing and nothing else but it does not work that way.

HC after HC talks about the importance of the running game to them so this non sense of well running does not win games? It does if it helps the offense move the ball and the chains

You want to use a stat watch the game see what a big time running game will force a defense to do to combat it and the passing lanes it creates.

It is not that hard to see and stats are not the be all

Let's suppose running the ball effectively does help your passing game. We should then be able to see a clear trend over many games and seasons that shows a positive correlation between more effective running and more effective passing, right? After all, if passing doesn't actually get better as running effectiveness increases, then our theory is just wrong. But as Adam has pointed out in this thread, there is no such correlation.

I fully appreciate that many football people claim there is a correlation between they two, but they are simply wrong, just as legions of baseball people were proven wrong in their beliefs about things like bunting and stolen bases over the last 30 years.

To add to the prior point, people tend to confuse the success of play-action passing with the success of running the ball. Play-action passing does work because of how it changes the spacing on the field, resulting in larger windows between the second and third levels of the defense. The fallacy is in the notion that a good running game is a prerequisite for effective play-action passing. There's no correlation between the two. Play-action passing works by tricking a linebacker or safety into seeing a running play develop. Players react to a running play independent of the success of prior running plays.

Let's suppose running the ball effectively does help your passing game. We should then be able to see a clear trend over many games and seasons that shows a positive correlation between more effective running and more effective passing, right? After all, if passing doesn't actually get better as running effectiveness increases, then our theory is just wrong. But as Adam has pointed out in this thread, there is no such correlation.

I fully appreciate that many football people claim there is a correlation between they two, but they are simply wrong, just as legions of baseball people were proven wrong in their beliefs about things like bunting and stolen bases over the last 30 years.

Not every team is built the same, running game is very important to some teams and HC still will tell you the importance of running and stopping the run. That takes nothing away from the importance of the passing game. However watch the games sometimes, safeties start moving up you get 8 in the box you start creating the one on one matchups, LB move up creating gaps behind them. Sorry but it matters

This is not a debate about passing vs running but the running game does matter and can have a big affect on the games if you don't get that then fine but it not myth it is fact

This past game RGIII threw for 100 yards Morring ran for 200 and had 4 rushing TD that fricken mattered big time. There are a lot more risk in the passing game than the running game.

To add to the prior point, people tend to confuse the success of play-action passing with the success of running the ball. Play-action passing does work because of how it changes the spacing on the field, resulting in larger windows between the second and third levels of the defense. The fallacy is in the notion that a good running game is a prerequisite for effective play-action passing. There's no correlation between the two. Play-action passing works by tricking a linebacker or safety into seeing a running play develop. Players react to a running play independent of the success of prior running plays.

No one is confusing a damn thing. HC around the NFL will tell you the same thing. You want to think running does not matter? Well given the fact how often teams run the ball why bother? why run the ball at all if it does not matter? This is not flag football

Not every team is built the same, running game is very important to some teams and HC still will tell you the importance of running and stopping the run. That takes nothing away from the importance of the passing game. However watch the games sometimes, safeties start moving up you get 8 in the box you start creating the one on one matchups, LB move up creating gaps behind them. Sorry but it matters

This is not a debate about passing vs running but the running game does matter and can have a big affect on the games if you don't get that then fine but it not myth it is fact

This past game RGIII threw for 100 yards Morring ran for 200 and had 4 rushing TD that fricken mattered big time. There are a lot more risk in the passing game than the running game.

When you state that something is a fact, you are obliged to actually prove it and not simply declare it. Adam has proven with facts that you are wrong. Again, nobody is saying play-action passing is not effective, but it is simply incorrect to claim that successful play-action passing is a function of successful running.

Nope. There is no significant correlation attached to the method of scoring.

Of course it doesn't matter how you score -- it's how often.

2011
Giants: 32 red zone TD -- 15 passing and 17 rushing.

Cowboys: 24 red zone TD -- 20 passing and 4 rushing.

I look at those numbers and conclude that it's important to be able to run in the red zone. I conclude that the Giants won the division in 2011 because they scored more TD (even more TD per possession) than we did. And I attribute that to their rushing TD.

No one is confusing a damn thing. HC around the NFL will tell you the same thing. You want to think running does not matter? Well given the fact how often teams run the ball why bother? why run the ball at all if it does not matter? This is not flag football

Nothing in the statistics say that running the ball doesn't matter. They say that running it effectively doesn't make you more likely to win.

There are game situations where you very definitely have to run the ball. It's just that, other than short yardage/goal line situations, doing it better than your opponent isn't going to make you (significantly) more likely to win.

Yes, you want to call passing plays from 3rd and 4 rather than 3rd and 10. But a more effective passing offense can overcome the difference between 3rd and 6 and 3rd and 4 fairly readily. Or that differential is dwarfed by what happens when you cough up a ball in a passing situation. Those kinds of passing game inefficiencies are the things that cause you to lose.

Again, if running the ball well keeps you on the field and helps you avoid passing ineffectively, by all means do it. You'll still lose if the other guy can pass more effectively than you can, but if avoiding the negative passing plays works in your favor, it's the smart thing to do. But it's smart because it keeps you from making a passing game mistake, not because rushing better than the other guy correlates strongly with winning.